As this graphic so clearly demonstrates, just because abortion wasn't legal, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

I've never wanted to have an abortion and I am very glad that so far I haven't had to have one. But I cannot express how much I appreciate the fact that I was born female in the late 70s. My grandmothers and even my mother lived in worlds where their entire existences were dictated by men, right down to the contents of their uteri, and by extension their health, social, and economic welfare. Thank god for reform.

Ignore for a moment whether abortion is right or wrong, or whether it is good for society or not. Even ignore the fetus. Think just of the parents, and the mother specifically. What are the reasons a woman would terminate her pregnancy? We have statistics on the counts, but do we have any data on the reasons why a woman would take such action? We can all come up with a list of reasons, sure. But are there any statistics? And have the reasons changed over the years?

We do not have statistics on the count. Do you believe for a second that the abortion rate was zero in 1969 according to the above chart? Do we believe that the population of the country would be 350 million but for Roe? I am an old man and I can tell you credibly that there were plenty of illegal abortion providers before Roe. The incentive for abortion in those days was simple - a single mother was the automatic recipient of the social death penalty, shunned by all. If someone would bother to do an extensive regressive analysis of all the data, I would not be surprised to see that the abortion rate was more or less steady all along. Roe helped us count so the debate could be informed, but I challenge anyone to show me evidence of 50 million additional dead babies on account of Roe.

"Those who side with Jane Roe" is a most ambiguous phrase. Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade is now an ardent pro life campaigner speaking from coast to coast. Do mean the position her lawyers took in the case or her current conviction on the issue?

Pro-life, Culture of life, and all the other marketing slogans have always been a big lie. America believes in killing people. Always has, does now, and probably always will. Put on a uniform, go to a foreign country, kill their citizens, including non-combatants, and its no problem. Convict someone of murder, or a lesser offence, and take that person's life. Again, no problem. I have listened to many anti-choice people spout moralistic nonsense about the life of the unborn, saving fetuses with severe abnormalities, doomed to a life of pain and suffering, but ask them if it was okay to rip out the throat of some 17 year old Iraqi conscript and they will say sure, why not.

I hope that you don't allow the hypocrisy of these people to form your judgement of the pro-life movement. John Paul II used "Culture of Life" to describe a way of life or societal order where ALL human life- from conception to natural death- is sacred. People who are against abortion but support the death penalty are anti-abortion, not pro-life. Ending human life in war is only acceptable if the war is just. Obviously this is open to interpretation, but I would say that almost all wars are unjust, or at least aren't worth ending human life.

You are confusing morality with justice. And remember that Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives, Pro-choice and Pro-life approved overwhelmingly supported the Iraqi invasion, so don't slant it as a pro-life negative. The death penalty should be used for justice, for murderers. Yes it is a corrupt system but does it validate killing the child in the womb?

At the very end is a moral discussion... It´s like making a graph of deaths and robberies.. of course if you legalize robberies you will have less deads and robberies will increase. But at the very end the only question that matters is: is robbery good or wrong for humanity?? And there anyone can have his own opinion based on whatever he wants/believes..

Seems to be kind of odd that the number of abortions is at least standardized as number per 1000. I don't see that the number of abortion-related deaths is other than just a raw number. If that is the case the roughly 50% increase in population since 1970 would yet more emphasize the decrease in deaths.

Axes
All is a question about axes.
If we do the math for the y-axis a little differently, we see the havoc right away:
20 abortions per year per 1000 women aged 15-44 equals an average of
0.6 killed fetuses per woman in her fertile life.
The peak was 0.9
Whatever you may think about women's rights, the scale of this carnage is horrific.

Boy oh Boy!! It surprises me that men across the US are busy forcing their opinions, judgments and moral arguments on women concerning something they have no idea about for the simple reason – they never get pregnant.

I am happy I don’t call myself Christian that too an American variety ;)

Really? Abortion has been around for thousands of years in pretty much every culture. This is hardly anything new. Seeing as abortion is going to happen anyway regardless of whether it legal or not don't you think the massive drop in abortion related deaths is a net positive? If you think that abortion will go away if you make it illegal I point you to the illicit drug industry as an example of how well that works.

The debate about when life begins, It must be based on a strong scientific base, today we have a huge problem, the problem is that ordinary people without any scientific base is capable of define when life begins, this definition is made solely on pretty subjective perceptions, its surpresing that in 21th century people is capable to define such an important issue without any scientific base, just on a subjective perception, mainly to protect a style of life based on a pansexualism view of life.

If you are a litle more objective on your point of view, and having at least a reference of a scientific base, you will realize that when there is a conception, there is a different DNA from that one of the mother, its interesting that in criminal investigations, what defines a person as different from other is his DNA, and this is because what make us humans and unique is our unique genetic code DNA, so why women should have the right to make whatever she wants with her own body? Its quite easy to see that it´s not her body, the fetus is not her body, since the DNA from this fetus is absolutely different from that one of the woman, this is just a scientific conclusión and not a subjective conclusión....

As a conclusion, I call all of you to make conclusions on scientific base, not on subjectives points of views, made to justify an style of life based on the satisfaction on sexual pleasure... remember scientifically the life is originated when there is a different DNA, so scientifically life starts with conception, because it origins a new DNA, a new structure for life, a new life....

Latinman never mentioned SOUL. Why do you bring SOUL into the discussion. He specifically said that a different DNA signifies that their is a life different from the woman developing inside the woman and because of that the woman is not entirely free to threat that new life as it pleases her.

Plants are people too you know..... Just sayin. Life is life, death is death. There is no getting around it, but we can please ourselves with verbal constructs. Plenty of lefty meat eaters BTW, plenty of right wing vegans too.

I have NO INDICATION attorneys did any manipulation or other unethical conduct as you state. Stick to FACTS and you MAY find your statements are truer and stronger. If you need to avoid facts, that is a big red flag.

Are you kidding? The lawyers wanted a case to bring to the Supreme Court and they found Norma. I didn't say that the lawyers broke the law or had any malicious intent toward McCorvey. But, obviously they were looking to promote a position. And she was a young, pregnant high school drop-out who had been abused by her alcoholic mother and then by her (ex)husband. She had various psychological troubles, was unemployed, and generally in a rough spot in life.

She later accused the lawyers of mistreating her... I take that with a grain of salt, since anything they did very well might have come across that way, but I think it is indicative of her general state of confusion at the time.

You're the one accusing her of being a fraud. You're claiming that her position on the issue in that situation was somehow more real than her position when she was a full-out adult with the time and space to think things through without pressure.

I'm just saying that she finished growing up, got her life in order, and got a chance to consider things more fully.

"Leaving them in place is a cheap way for politicians to place themselves on one side of a culture war without having to accept the consequences of their position."
*
The worst result of decisions like Roe v Wade is that pols learned that they could let problems fester until the courts stepped in to deal with them. Then there is much sound and fury, signifying nothing, for constituents who oppose the decision. It is the easy way to be a legislator, never having to take a stand in advance that requires a vote to confirm it.
*
I found the timing of Roe v Wade unfortunate, in that state legislatures were already confronting the issue.

I believe everyone discussing this issue agrees that life has value and should be protected, but the argument centers around what the definition of human life should be. I find any effort to assign the value of life to a person based on an arbitrary age disturbing, and birth in the end is an arbitrary age. It reminds me of efforts by other societies to assign value to human life based on racial background, gender, social status, or other distinguishing factors, usually leading to discrimination and sometimes to extermination of those groups. Abortion should be an option in cases of rape and incest, and when the life of the mother is threatened, but to end a life for mere convenience as in the vast majority of cases in the statistics above is clearly wrong. I would rather we all err on the side of protecting life.

Self serving logic.
But anyway, here is an interesting take on the connection between the rise of anti-abortion sentiment in whites and the rise of out of wedlock births among that group.http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/01/did_the_pro_life_...
The term "mere convenience" may hide the unraveling of an entire society if this connection is real. It is food for thought no matter where you stand on where life begins or if abortion should be legal and safe.

How is the OP's logic self serving? Is it not reasonable to question at what point in the development of life a fetus becomes a human being? Perhaps I am wrong about this (and I would appreciate direction to the appropriate scientific literature if I am), but I am not certain that medicine/science has yet given us a definitive answer to this question. Perhaps more importantly, is it even a question that is within the realm of scientific discovery, or is it simply a question of metaphysics?

So kill the child before he tastes that awful, awful poverty. Better to be butchered in a fetal abattoir than live poor, amirite?

As for the "red meat for the right" bit, abortion is one of those rare political issues on which left and right seem to have swapped ideologies: right-wingers talk of equality, human rights and “defending the innocent”, while left-wingers fetishise “choice”, selfishness and unbridled individualism.

To quote the late great late Christopher Hitchens in his column for the Nation. “Anyone who has ever seen a sonogram or has spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows that emotions are not the deciding factor. In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain . . . break some bones and rupture some organs.”

Science gives us a definitive answer to the point that it can. A new human organism is formed at conception. When that organism becomes "a person," or whatever term you want to use for it, is more of a philosophical issue.

I didn't source ANY of my opinion from books, articles or interviews with Planned Parenthood workers. I hope that doesn't mean I can't play in the sand box with you?

You certainly don't NEED to agree with my suggesting there's a correlation between society's disposable mindset and abortion as a matter of expedience...but you'll be missing a good dose of common sense if you do!

By the way, I was wondering if you had any statistics backing YOUR argument (that women weigh their decision to abort against the potential for living in poverty)?